Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

tlhIngan writes "So why did Apple decide to ditch the (working) iOS maps app with one based on their own data (despite having one more year to the contract)? It turns out to be turn-by-turn voice navigation. It wasn't a feature in the original Apple-Google licensing agreement, so Apple went back to Google to renegotiate what has become a top-tier feature on Android. Apple wanted it. In return, Google wanted increased branding in the maps app (Apple refused) or to integrate Latitude (Google's FourSquare competitor), to which Apple refused as well. As a result Apple was forced to seek other sources in order to obtain this feature." Eventually, iOS users who don't want to wait for Apple-Google parity will be able to download a native version of Google's maps (rather than a hacked version), but that could be a ways off.

You'd think Google could've gotten Apple to agree to patent detente in exchange for full map support with turn-by-turn and the works. Whether branded or not, Google would still get the search terms to use to improve their systems. I wonder whether this was even discussed. Then again, maybe both sides were so concerned about branding that they lost track of the bigger picture.

Google wanted increased branding in the maps app (Apple refused) or to integrate Lattitude (Google's FourSquare competitor), to which Apple refused as well. As a result Apple decided to seek other sources in order to obtain this feature.

In retrospect, Apple should have kept Google maps in iOS for another year, and rolled out iOS maps first as an app. That way they would have had time to debug, and get a more graceful market introduction. I suspect that the problem is that Apple did not do enough iOS maps testing in advance, and was blindsided by all of the post-launch problems. Given that this is a safety issue, this is actually a pretty big fail.

If Apple wouldn't agree to the essentially no-cost, no risk concession of more prominent branding why on earth would they render some portion of their patent arsenal worthless vis-a-vis their largest mobile OS rival?

The first part of that, "you don't help your own enemy", is exactly why Apple needed to stop using Google for maps...

But if they were smart they would be eager to release an app. After all, from this point on Apple is going to start using the maps feedback to improve the map. Now while so many people are criticizing the Apple maps is the time for Google to stand up an alternative map app for people to get used to using; if they did so they might not switch back to using Apple for maps for some time, and Google could continue gathering valuable information about map use.

If Google could actually kill Apple by not giving map support that would be one thing. But that's not going to happen, so it would be better to do something that helps Google more even if it helps Apple a bit also.

Of course, John Gruber would never post anything negative about Apple or would never admit to them making a mistake. So we can pretty much discount his opinion and pure "damage control". That's what he always does anyhow. I don't know why people still defer to him, he's basically Apple's PR machine, along with AllThingsD.com.

Apple had a couple of very harsh lessons in the past about letting a competitor control features that are strategically important. Google was dragging their feet on turn-by-turn navigation, so they had to go.

As a result Apple was forced to seek other sources in order to obtain this feature.

Apple was not forced to do anything. They chose to seek other sources because they wanted full control.

From the article:

Requiring iPhone users to look directly at handsets for directions and manually move through each step — while Android users enjoyed native voice-guided instructions — put Apple at a clear disadvantage in the mobile space.

Apple had plenty of opportunities to improve their navigation app without Google's help. For starters, they could have made it so that the phone wouldn't lock itself when in navigation mode. I can't count the number of seconds I had to take my eyes off of the road to enter my password. Apple: people use this app while operating a vehicle that weighs thousands of pounds - I thought you were the guys that put thought into the user experience of your software. I hope for everyone's safety that this "feature" has been fixed.

And finally, I'm not trying to troll here, but I can't help but wonder how all of this would be playing out if Google had patented every trivial feature of their map and navigation software like Apple does for all of its apps. That would certainly have made this scenario a hell of a lot more interesting.

You mean an application that duplicates the functionality of a built-in app?

You really think Apple is going to allow this in the iOS store?

I'm wondering about the legality of such a rule. Back in the day, Microsoft got a lot of flak just for having IE built in the OS; imagine what would have happened if they would have said: "sorry, Win95 has a built-in web browser, there is no need for an alternative browser, such as Netscape, and we won't allow it!"...

Of course, John Gruber would never post anything negative about Apple or would never admit to them making a mistake.

Actually he has; but let's say that's true.

So we can pretty much discount his opinion and pure "damage control".

I disagree. That's Apple's response, sure. But Gruber is really digging to find out what is going on, and he does as the OP says have very close sources. Even with the (valid) assumption the report comes through very Apple colored glasses, it still reads as probably quite accurate - can you find a flaw in his timing argument for example? That is a very well reasoned argument for why, if Apple was going to move from Google maps, they had to do so now instead of the exact end of the contract, for all the reasons he mentions.

Gruber being biased towards Apple does not change any of the facts Apple was up against in making the choices they made, which we are getting from multiple sources beyond just Gruber (like Maps contract expiring in a year). The pro-Apple view comes into play more in thinking about the choices Apple made being either good or bad ones, not as much about the facts themselves when we have corroboration from elsewhere.

Do not forget that BOTH companies are attempting spin control on this issue, not just Apple. Google for example wants to distract from Apple shipping 3D maps to consumers in an included map app first (yes they had Google Earth, but it was always more of a side project and not yet integrated into maps on mobile devices). Of course Nokia was ahead of both of them... it's interesting that no-one complained of similar 3D warping errors in that case.

Apple, by all indications, was significantly funding the development of a competitors platform through licensing payments to Google. The competitor, Google, provided significant technology for Apple, but refused to provide the most advanced technology for Apple. Google was acting rationally by playing hardball on exclusive technology for Android. Apple is acting rationally by saying we are no longer going to fund the development of Android.

Apple has a user base and has time to create a better map software, just like they were given time to make a better phone. OTOH, with Apple Maps in disarray, all the Apple users who are locked into contracts are going to be looking for better maps. There are better navigation maps that cost very little money on IOS. Mapquest, as a has been mentioned, is a good alternative. With increased use and more ad funding, Mapquest can be very good. Mapquest was what we all used before google came along with it's pretty pictures.

The danger here is 100% google. If users do not see a Google App in the next few weeks, many will have gone other places. For travel, the thing Google has is Buses. Mapquest, for instance, has the ability to match that. It has in some cities. For many Apple users, the new maps is good enough. Google took a risk and lost some branding.

You miss the point. Most Android phones have Google Maps preinstalled. Imagine if iPhones started shipping with something else. Doesn't matter if it's a custom Apple app or if they used MapQuest. The ubiquity of such a product would immediately provide significant competition to Google Maps. As an Android user I would love that if it means my Google Maps improves somehow as a result.

They do want to grab angry iOS users. But they want to do so by switching them to Android instead.

It's true in the short term that Google may get some new Android users out of this. But not nearly as many as they have lost from Apple switching maps away from Google (well over 100 million iPhones running around now). If Google had a mapping app ready now, they could have got a significant percentage - say 10-20 percent - of them back as Google Maps users.

Longer term Apple will be able to use a large number of people to rapidly improve map quality. Longer term people will find that apps are providing better transit guidance than Google is able to give, and third party transit apps are integrated into Apple maps in a way that Google is unlikely to follow with since Google is trying to gather data about what you want to do, and they are blind if you go into a third-party app for transit.

Whenever I see someone using MapQuest, I take five minutes out of my day and show them how to use Google Maps. SOOO much better. MapQuest sucks so badly iOS 6 Maps is an improvement.

One thing that's interesting about your list is that at least two of those vendors (plus Google, and Yahoo, who use Nokia) have a web presence. I wonder if Apple is going to put Maps into iCloud. It'd be nice if you could do a search while at your desk at work, say, and save the search to iCloud and have it ready and waiting on your phone when you pick it up.

One wonders what WOULD have been acceptable terms for apple. "We demand you give us turn by turn navigation. In exchange we will allow you a limited existence on the iphone. Which WILL BE the only mobile platform out there once we sue all your pathetic android makers into oblivion! MUHAHAHAHAH!!! BEG FOR YOUR MOBILE LIFE, GOOGLE!!!!"

You mean an application that duplicates the functionality of a built-in app?

You really think Apple is going to allow this in the iOS store?

I'm wondering about the legality of such a rule. Back in the day, Microsoft got a lot of flak just for having IE built in the OS; imagine what would have happened if they would have said: "sorry, Win95 has a built-in web browser, there is no need for an alternative browser, such as Netscape, and we won't allow it!"...

the apple defense is that they aren't a monopoly.that's the apple defense to all allegations about unfair practices, pretty much.

Spoken like someone who's probably never picked up an iPhone in his life. Select contact. Click-Hold address. Select Copy. go to whatever maps app or webisite you like and click paste.

It's really that simple. The whole maps 'disaster' is so overblown it's hilarious. If you live in any larger city, chances are you will never notice an issue that impacts you in any meaningful way. About the only useful info that's lacking are bus routes/times.

"And then how he tried to muddy the waters by adding the iPad numbers to claim iOS' superiority? "

How so? When Google talks about "Android activations" do they leave out tablets?

"After even that failed, he(and his chums like Siegler) resorted to calling the Apple winner over Android because it takes 80% of the mobile profits! "

As a profit seeking entity, isn't profit the most important measure of success? How can a money losing company - i.e. every Android manufacturer except for Samsung and HTC (barely) be considered "successfully"?

"For proof of his partisanship see his analysis of Apple's forced 30% cut of in-app purchases over which it kicked out a number of apps."

"Spoken like someone who's probably never picked up an iPhone in his life. Select contact. Click-Hold address. Select Copy. go to whatever maps app or webisite you like and click paste."

As oposed to finding your contact and taping in the mini map that appears with it, right? What if im driving? Will siri open a google maps app for my contact? Yeah, didnt think so.

And if the new maps app isnt all that good in the US and the UK, how the fuck do you think it will do in Mexico. And YES im just ranting because YES, im stuck with the damned thing. I will change to iphone 5 anyhow because im apple all the way.

For this change yes, i will say again and again: fuck them and the horse they rode in on until they get me perfect maps at least as good as I have right now.

Dave, I think that's the whole point. Google was the map provider for Droid and iOS, but they weren't keeping the iOS version up-to-date in terms of functionality like the were the Droid versions. That's exactly why Apple told them to take a hike.

That's a nice story. The problem with it is that, in the real world, the Maps app on iOS was maintained (such as it, which was not very much) by Apple. Google wasn't the app supplier, it was the map data provider.

So, if anyone was responsible for the UX experience of the iOS Maps app not keeping up with the UX of the equivalent Android app, it was Apple. (Well, I guess you can blame Google for working more on the Android app than Apple was willing to bother working on the iOS app.)

If Apple's concern was UX rather than continuing Jobs promised nuclear war with Google, they would have spent their resources making UX improvements (and not faced the blowback from dropping popular features that depended on Google's data resources) rather than on purchasing other companies so that they could replace Google as the backend data supplier.

No, it's very misleading because Amazon is investing the profits into expansion which is way different from a company struggling to make money which Gruber wants to portray it as, comparing profit like the way he did is ridiculous. And it looks like it worked, with people like you thinking profits mean everything. Check the stock market reaction to earnings and you'll know why it is misleading.

As a profit seeking entity, isn't profit the most important measure of success? How can a money losing company - i.e. every Android manufacturer except for Samsung and HTC (barely) be considered "successfully"?

Because marketshare also matters, and Android is clearly winning there. Picking the metric that best suits Apple because Apple's losing on other metrics is a pretty lame tactic. By that metric Microsoft is winning over Linux and Apache in the server and web server market.

Ah, the classic technique of showing Android is just as bad? But sorry, your own link says this:

By comparison, Apple also prohibits the use of third-party payment systems in applications sold through its iOS App Store. A key difference, however, is that Google offers exceptions for retailers of physical and virtual goods (including ebooks). It's also worth noting that Android's support for application sideloading and alternate distribution channels will mean Android application developers have the option of not complying with Google's new rules, assuming they are willing to sacrifice the advantages of having a presence in the platform's standard marketplace.

Which means you can buy ebooks from the Kindle app on Android, but you cannot on iDevices. Read it later was kicked out because of Apple's policy (which was ironic given that Apple used their OSS code in Safari for a similar feature).

Also, your link fails to address the fact that Microsoft allows third party payments in the Windows App Store. Perhaps you should try reading some other sources of news instead of living in the Daring Fireball bubble.

"And then how he tried to muddy the waters by adding the iPad numbers to claim iOS' superiority? "
How so? When Google talks about "Android activations" do they leave out tablets?

Generally when one makes a prediction, one sets out the conditions by which the prediction will be measured at the time the prediction is made. e.g. If you make a prediction about phone OS share, then it's a prediction about phone OS share. If the prediction turns out wrong, you don't get to retroactively change it to include other data to make it arrive at the result you want.

Within those confines, you're free to compare and predict whatever you want. If you want to make a prediction about phones, you make it about phones. If you want to make a prediction about phones + tablets, that's what you predict. If you want to make a prediction about iOS taking over the world and displacing Windows, that's what you predict.

"After even that failed, he(and his chums like Siegler) resorted to calling the Apple winner over Android because it takes 80% of the mobile profits! "
As a profit seeking entity, isn't profit the most important measure of success? How can a money losing company - i.e. every Android manufacturer except for Samsung and HTC (barely) be considered "successfully"?

There are thousands of different metrics which one could use to measure success. If you're free to pick and choose which one to use after the fact, it's almost a statistical certainty that there will be some metric which supports your hypothesis. That's why all the investment firms advertising their "top-performing funds" are bunk. Whether or not they have some funds which out-performed the market by 40% last year is irrelevant. What matters is how likely a customer was to have picked one of those funds before they out-performed the market.

That's why you need to set the conditions of a prediction at the time of the prediction. e.g. Investment firm predicts that their funds A, B, and C will outperform the market by 40% the following year. If you don't establish these conditions ahead of time, you're just cherry-picking data which fits your hypothesis.

That's the criticism being leveled against Apple supporters. First it was all about the UI. Then when that was matched it suddenly became about size (screen size and thinness of the iPad). When those were surpassed, it suddenly became about market share. Since iOS is a distant second now, it's suddenly about profits. At this point it's obvious to pretty much all unbiased observers that Apple supporters are just cherry-picking whatever stats support their argument that iOS is superior.

This has nothing to do with the conclusion of the argument - Apple products could very well be the best thing since sliced bread. But if the arguments supporting that assertion are this mutable and fickle, their reliability as an indicator of the strength of the conclusion is highly suspect. Statisticians, scientists, and people trying to be unbiased do not simply morph their argument every time it's disproven. They first question the validity of the hypothesis around which the argument was based. Failure to question the initial hypothesis is a pretty strong indicator of bias. Which was OP's point.

The key difference here is that Apple's App Store is your only way to get binaries onto an iOS device. If you don't like Google's Market/Play policies, you can use any of the countless other markets for Android. Heck, you don't even need a market. Just put your Android app binary on any old web page and give people the URL.

"No, it's very misleading because Amazon is investing the profits into expansion which is way different from a company struggling to make money which Gruber wants to portray it as, comparing profit like the way he did is ridiculous. And it looks like it worked, with people like you thinking profits mean everything. Check the stock market reaction to earnings and you'll know why it is misleading."

Amazon has been in business since 1994. How many more years will Amazon be "re-invsesting profits" for growth?

In 1997, Apple was nearly bankrupt, and now it has $100 billion in the bank. Which company has done better?

"Because marketshare also matters, and Android is clearly winning there."

So who does marketshare matter to?

The OEMs who are all losing money except for Samsung and HTC (barely?)

Google? Who according to there own testimony before Congress get 66% of their mobile profits from iOS devices? And then spent two years worth of their net income to buy the money-losing Motorola Mobility?

The third party developers who get an average only a quarter for every dollar on Android compared to Apple?

I'm loving the new Apple maps, at least here in the US. Seems to have no problem finding addresses, and features spoken, turn by turn instructions. Used them extensively this weekend. Huge upgrade over the old Google maps.

Now, apparently the default maps app sucks - at least for the moment - in many countries overseas. China oddly enough not being one of them. The Chinese are apparently marveling at how much better Apple's map app is than Google's. Go figure.

Seems to depend a lot on the quality of the map database Apple bought in each country. In the US they bought their data from Tom Tom, which is pretty high quality (for driving, anyhow). Overseas looks like it's a crap shoot.

I think a lot of users are going to read the hysteria surrounding Apple's maps, then have an experience similar to mine and wonder what the Fandroids are all smoking. Apple's critics keep doing this ("Antennagate" being the best example), and come off looking like idiots as a result.